QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 21, 2021

2020000414 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/163,017 05/24/2016 Richard Dominic Wietfeldt 151803B1/1173-278CP 6382 115309 7590 04/21/2021 W&T/Qualcomm 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 EXAMINER TAYLOR, BROOKE JAZMOND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2181 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/21/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com patents@wt-ip.com us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD DOMINIC WIETFELDT ________________ Appeal 2020-000414 Application 15/163,017 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒30.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000414 Application 15/163,017 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter relates to mitigating effects of electromagnetic interference and other electromagnetic compatibility issues. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. An application processor, comprising: an interface configured to: couple to an aggressor communications bus; transmit one or more application processor signals to the aggressor communications bus; and receive one or more transceiver signals from the aggressor communications bus; and a control system configured to: receive information from a coexistence manager, the information indicating that a victim receiver experiences interference as a result of the aggressor communications bus; process a determination of a data/clock mode of the interface that mitigates a performance impact corresponding to the interference; and set the data/clock mode of the interface to mitigate the interference experienced by the victim receiver. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1‒18 and 23‒30 stand rejected on the ground of obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1‒26 of U.S. Patent No. 9,934,190 and Wietfeldt (US 2013/0196654 A1; Aug. 1, 2013). Final Act. 5‒9. Appeal 2020-000414 Application 15/163,017 3 Claims 1‒30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fu (US 2011/0312288 A1; Dec. 22, 2011) and Wietfeldt. Final Act. 9‒ 14. ANALYSIS Double Patenting Claims 1‒18 and 23‒30 stand rejected on the ground of obviousness- type double patenting. Final Act. 5‒9. Appellant does not argue the Examiner errs in rejecting these claims on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting and consents to a submission of a terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection at a later time. Appeal Br. 10. We, therefore, summarily affirm the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1‒18 and 23‒30. Obviousness The Examiner finds the combination of Fu and Wietfeldt teaches or suggests “a control system configured to: receive information from a coexistence manager, the information indicating that a victim receiver experiences interference as a result of the aggressor communications bus,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 10. In particular, the Examiner finds Fu teaches a system including processor 43 (the claimed “control system”) and central control entity 44 (the claimed “coexistence manager”). Ans. 13 (citing Fu ¶¶ 31, 32). The Examiner finds central control entity 44 is a logical entity that is physically implemented within processor 43 and, therefore, the central control entity is required to transmit its data through the processor, which the Examiner determines reads on this limitation. Id. at 14 (citing Fu ¶ 31). Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Fu teaches central control entity 44 runs on processor 43 and, therefore, processor 43 cannot receive Appeal 2020-000414 Application 15/163,017 4 information from itself. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues the Examiner’s interpretation reads this limitation out of the claim. Id. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites “a control system configured to receive information from a coexistence manager.” An ordinarily skilled artisan would not consider the processor on which a logical entity is executed to be receiving information from that logical entity. Instead, the processor is the physical component that executes the logical entity. An ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the claimed control system to be another entity that receives this information from the central control entity. We, therefore, disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim, and agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to establish that Fu teaches the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Fu and Wietfeldt teaches or suggests “a control system configured to receive information from a coexistence manager.” For these reasons,2 we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 23 and 29, which recite commensurate subject matter. By virtue of their dependency from one of these independent claims, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2‒22, 24‒28, and 30 for the same reasons. 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Appeal 2020-000414 Application 15/163,017 5 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1‒18, 23‒ 30 Obviousness-type double patenting 1‒18, 23‒ 30 1‒30 103 Fu, Wietfeldt 1‒30 Overall outcome 1‒18, 23‒ 30 19‒22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED IN PART